A few weeks ago, I introduced a new statistic I created that measured quarterbacks via a combinination of advanced and traditional metrics.
Now, as a disclaimer, there is no real original theory here, TURD merely takes a variety of statistics used to measure quarterbacks and combines them to find which quarterbacks come out, statistically, better as a whole. The idea is that while every statistic may give slightly different answers, by using multiple, unique measures we can find which quarterbacks' performances come out on top across the board.
In order to get a better look at data, I've added to the data, and will continue adding, now compiling and normalizing the statistics from the 2010 season as well. The results are below:
A few notes, although I'll have more complete thoughts once I get a full three years of data.
- It should be clear now why Carolina drafted a quarterback early in the first round two years in a row. Clausen was abysmal by every measure.
- It should also be clear why Arizona was willing to pay Kevin Kolb so much money, despite his shaky resume. Derek Anderson was almost as bad as Clausen and Brett Favre, whose final year in the league was a huge disappointment.
- Sam Bradford really wasn't good his rookie year either. I'm not sure why analysts and experts were so surprised by his poor year in 2011, although it certainly was worse than what anyone expected.
- Philip Rivers was much better in 2010 than he was a year ago. If he can regain that form in 2012, the Broncos will have some competition for the division title.
- 2010 was easily Cassel's best season, and he was still basically just average. People in Kansas City keep saying they believe in him, but they need a true franchise quarterback to be able to excel, and I don't think he is that.
- Josh Freeman must be incredibly frustrating for Bucs fans. He was so good in 2010, but so so bad in 2011, going from 8th in the league to 25th in 2011. There are multiple theories on why he fell so hard last year, but the fact is that he's got to be back up to that level for the Bucs to compete for the playoffs in a crowded NFC.
Just wondering, how is DVOA normalized from 0-100. What would the maximum DVOA be (in essence, what DVOA value would give a normalized value of 100), because DVOA doesn't really have bounds from what we've seen. Just curious to know your methodology.
Great work with this, btw.
@dmstorm22 It's normalized for the sample set. Basically, this just measures them against their contemporaries for the year. So, scores don't translate across years.
Why is Romo's WPA so low? I know he only played six games that year, but he was better than Kitna in just about every meaningful category, yet Kitna had much higher WPA that year. Is it some sort of statistical anomaly or possibly a mess-up by Advanced NFL Stats?
Enjoy the stat crunching though!